Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.10 10:28:09 +0530 2025:CGHC:11040-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1223 of 2023 Ramkumar Kosle S/o Late Pardeshi Kosle, aged about 30 years R/o Village Mahli, Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham (C.G.) versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 .0 3 .202 5 1. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.No. 01/2023, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order 2 of sentence dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 54/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.07.2020 at between 4-4.30 pm, Shanti Bai was cutting wood with a tangiya (axe) in front of her house, at the same time her son Ramkumar Kosle asked for a tangiya (axe) from his mother saying that he would cut the wood and started cutting the wood and hit his mother Shanti Bai with the tangiya (axe) and inflicted serious injuries on the neck, cheek and head, who was taken to the District Hospital, Kawardha for treatment, wherein Dr. Vivek Chandrawanshi (PW-7) has given primary treatment to the injured and during her treatment, the Doctor found following injuries as per Ex.P-12 :- “01. The injured person was in an unconscious state, she was not responding. 02. There was swelling near the victim's left eye. 03. The injured person had a cut mark on the inside of his right knee measuring 1x5x5 cm. 04. There was swelling near the elbow of the injured person's left hand. 05. There was a cut wound measuring 3x1x1 cm below 3 the chin of the injured person, through which the bone was visible. 06. Inside the mouth of the injured person, the upper left tooth was visible protruding along with his muscles. 07. A cut wound measuring 3x1x1 cm was visible on the side of the injured person’s left eye. 08. A cut wound was visible in the left eyebrow of the injured person measuring 1x5x5 cm. 09. A cut wound measuring 3x1x1 cm was visible on the forehead above the left eyebrow of the injured person. 10. A cut mark measuring 1x5x5 cm was visible on the upper part of the back of the head of the injured person. 11. A cut mark measuring 3x1x1 cm was visible on the lower part of the back of the head of the injured person. 12. A cut wound mark was visible on the back side of the elbow of the victim's left hand, the size of which was 3x1x1 cm. 13. The injured was bleeding from her mouth and nose for which she was advised to undergo X-ray and CT scan. 4. Looking to serious condition of the victim, she was referred to Raipur for treatment and while being taken to Raipur, Shanti Bai died on the way. Initially, on the report of the applicant Komal
Facts
Lahare, FIR (Ex.P-24) under Crime No. 133/2020, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused 4 by Pandatarai police station on 05.07.2020 at 18.30 hrs. and later on, after the death, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added against the accused. After receiving information of the death of deceased, the same was recorded as per Ex.P-20, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-9. Postmorterm over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-10), who found following injuries : 01. There was a cut mark on the left cheek of the deceased measuring 3x2x1 centimetres. 02. There was a cut wound near the left eye of the deceased measuring 4.5x0.5x4 cms, bone was visible in the wound and diagomatic and temporal bone was broken which was in spindle shape and both the edges of the wound were clear. 03. There was a stitched injury on the side of the left eye of the deceased, the size of which was 01 cm. 04. There was an injury mark on left cheek of the deceased upto mandible bone measuring 4x1x3.5 cms which was in spindle shape and both the edges of the wound were clear and there was fracture in left jaw from where bleeding was taking place. 05. The deceased had broken teeth in which molar and premolar were broken and the upper incisor tooth was broken. 06. There were two bruises in the middle of the right side of the head- (1) Incised wound was present whose size was 2x0.5x1 cm. 5 (2) An incised wound was present measuring 5x1x4 cm. 07. The bone in the middle part of the head (occipital part) was broken and was visible outside. 08. On opening the skull, blood was found in the right side of the brain. 09. There was a cut wound on the right arm of the deceased measuring 3x1x1 cm. 10. There was a cut wound on the right knee of the
Legal Reasoning
conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 23. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with 3 AIR 1956 SC 460 13 approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar4 and it has been held that burden of proving the case against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence. 24. On 15.07.2020 at 18.30 hrs., the applicant Komal Lahare lodged a report of the incident at the Pandatarai police station in which the time of the incident was stated as 4.30 pm. Although prosecution has failed to get the statement of the applicant Komal Lahare recorded, but the investigating officer B.P. Tiwari (PW 13) who wrote the First Information Report (Exhibit P-24) has clearly stated that the applicant had lodged the First Information Report as per Exhibit P-24, on which his signature is also there. 25. If the First Information Report (Exhibit P-24) is read in its entirety as evidence, it can be concluded that Komal Lahare was not an eyewitness to the incident, rather his evidence was of the category of hearsay evidence. The First Information Report (Exhibit P-24) is as follows that he had gone to village Madmada with his aunt Shanti Bai's younger son Raju to pick up his sister at 11.00 am and were returning to the village with his sister at 4.30 pm. On reaching the village, Raju was dropping Kosle near his house. At the same time, the children playing there told that Raju's mother had been killed by Ramkumar Kosle. When he and Raju went inside the house and looked, Raju's mother Shanti Bai was soaked in blood and there were injury marks on the back of the 4 AIR 1974 SC 778 14 head, cheek and near the left shoulder and blood was coming out, while hitting, daughter in law Kamlesh saw the waves, she screamed, then the neighbours came. 26. According to the First Information Report (Ex.P-24), Komal Lahre is not an eyewitness to the incident and the deceased Shanti Bai's son Raju, who reached the scene of incident with Komal Lahre at 4.30 pm, has also not been made a witness by the prosecution. According to the First Information Report (Ex.P-24), Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03), who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, has been named as an eyewitness to the incident. 27. Smt. Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03), who is an eyewitness to the incident, has stated that the accused seems to be her brother-in- law, the deceased Shanti Bai is her mother-in-law, the incident occurred one and a half years before her statement, on the date of the incident she had gone to someone else's field to work and returned from there at about 3.00 pm and at 4.00 pm she had gone to her storeroom to get fodder where there was a wall and then she heard the sound of her mother-in-law screaming. She saw that her mother-in-law was hacked with a tangia (axe) by the accused Ramkumar Kosle due to which she had injuries on her neck, hands and legs, then she shouted to the villagers, then Gopal and Banwali people came and took Shanti Bai to Kawardha, from there they were taking her to Raipur, she died on the way. 28. Gopal Jaiswal (PW 05) who is a resident of village Mahali has 15 also stated that Ramkumar Kosle had killed his mother. On the date of the incident, he came back from the field and reached the garden. The accused killed his mother with an axe and threw her in his house. Shanti Bai was lying in the courtyard with injuries on her head and hand. He called 112 and called a car and sent her to the hospital and she died thereafter. 29. Witness Gopal Jaiswal (PW 05) has admitted in cross- examination that he did not see the accused beating his mother and the accused was also present when Shanti Bai was lying in her house. Thus, it is clear that the witness Gopal Jaiswal (PW 05) is also not an eyewitness to the incident and his evidence is also based on hearsay evidence, but when he reached the spot after the incident, he found the accused also present there. 30. Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) has stated that he saw Shanti Bai lying on the road a little distance away from the house and blood was flowing from her body and many people of the village went there and then it was found out that Shanti Bai had been murdered by her son, but on being questioned by the prosecution in the form of cross examination of the witness, the witness has accepted that from the side of Shanti Bai's house, her daughter-in- law Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) cried for help, then he went towards Shanti's house and when he went there, he saw the injury marks on Shanti Bai's head, cheek and shoulder, then Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) told that Shanti Bai was injured by Ramkumar Kosle by 16 hitting her with a tangia (axe). 31. Witness Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) has admitted in cross- examination that when he reached the spot, Shivkumar and Kamlesh Kosle were there, but the evidence of witness Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) confirms that during the incident, deceased's daughter-in-law Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) shouted and on hearing the shout, Banwali Chandraul reached the spot. Although he has stated that he saw Shanti Bai lying on the road a little distance away from the house, but the place of incident is the house of the deceased, which is confirmed by the spot map (Ex.P-01), hence, the statement of Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) that he saw the dead body of Shanti Bai on the road away from her house does not appear to be reliable, the dead body was lying at the house of the deceased situated near the road, which is confirmed by the evidence of other witnesses and Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) had told Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) that the accused had killed the deceased with a tangia (axe), hence, Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) came to know about the accused killing the deceased with a tangia (axe) on the information of Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03). 32. Witness Shivkumar (PW-04) who is the husband of Kamlesh Kosle has admitted in paragraph 7 of the cross-examination that he did not see the accused hitting the accused himself, but on being told by his son Vivek, he ran to the spot and saw the injury marks on his mother's cheek, head, knee and hand and took her to Kawardha Hospital. 33. In this case, the only eyewitness to the incident is Kamlesh Kosle 17 (PW 03) who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and the wife of the accused's brother Shivkumar (PW 04). All the evidence in the case shows that the deceased Shanti Bai had two marriages, her first husband was Anup and the second husband was Pardeshi. Shivkumar was born from the first husband and the accused Ramkumar Kosle and Raju were born from the second husband Pardeshi. Ramkumar Kosle, Raju and mother Shanti Bai lived separately together and Shivkumar lived separately with his family. Ramkumar Kosle is not married. According to the evidence available in the case, Shanti Bai lived with Ramkumar and Raju in village Mahali on the outskirts of the village and Shivkumar lived with his wife Kamlesh Kosle in a separate village Mahali in the middle of the village and his storehouse was in village Mahali, next to the place where the deceased lived, which is confirmed by the place 'E' marked in the spot map (Ex.P-01) where Smt. Kamlesh Kosle (PW-03) had gone during the incident. 34. Witness Smt. Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) has admitted in cross- examination that where her mother-in-law lived there was her store room and in between there was a wall which was built by her mother-in-law, which was 10-12 feet high. The witness has also admitted in cross-examination that from the store room what was happening in the courtyard of the mother-in-law is not visible, but the witness has clearly stated in cross-examination that she saw when she heard her mother-in-law screaming, i.e. on hearing 18 Shanti Bai screaming Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) who was next to the house reached the spot and she saw the accused Ramkumar Kosle being beaten. The evidence of the above witness is not contradicted in the cross-examination and on hearing the shouts of Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03), Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) also came there and Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) told him about the incident and when Banwali Chandraul (PW 06) reached the spot, he saw injuries on the body of Shanti Bai and she was lying on the ground and when Gopal Jaiswal (PW 05) reached the spot, he saw Shanti Bai lying in the courtyard and saw injuries on her head and hand. 35. Investigating Officer B.P. Tiwari (P.W. 13) has stated that on 06.07.2020, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in front of witnesses Gopal Jaiswal (P.W. 05) and Narad Chandravanshi (P.W. 01) near the grocery shop of village Mahali Gaukaran Sahu as Ex.P-11 and also alleged that on 06.07.2020 itself, the tangia (axe) was seized when the accused produced it from his house as per the statement given by the accused. 36. Both the witnesses Gopal Jaiswal (PW 05) and Narad Chandravanshi (PW 01) have alleged that the police had interrogated the accused, but the accused did not tell anything, but both the witnesses have alleged that the police had seized the tangia (axe) from the house of the accused as per the seizure memo (Exhibit P-02). 37. Witness Gopal Jaiswal (PW 05) has stated in cross-examination 19 that on the date of the incident when the police came for investigation, they took away the tangia (axe) and the next day the police did not come to the village and witness Narad Chandravanshi (PW 01) has also stated to the same effect that the police took the accused to the police station for investigation after the incident and returned after an hour and seized a blood-stained axe and soil etc. from the house of the accused. The witness has stated in cross-examination that the police themselves found and took out the tangia (axe) from the house of the accused. The evidence of the witnesses shows that the fact was not disclosed on the basis of the memorandum of the accused. Rather, after the incident the police inspected the house of the accused and seized a tangia (axe) from his house, which the accused has also accepted in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. 38. The deceased, the accused and Raju lived in the house where the dead body of the deceased was lying. The First Information Report (Exhibit P-24) shows that Raju went to village Madmada with Komal Lahare and when he returned, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the house, that is, Raju was not present at home, only the accused was with the deceased. Eyewitness Smt. Kamlesh Kosle (PW 03) had seen the accused hitting the deceased Shanti Bai with an axe. 39. The place of incident was the house of the accused and at the time of the incident nobody else was present in that house except 20 the deceased and the accused and Smt. Kamlesh Kosle (PW 3) had also seen the accused hitting the deceased with an axe, after the incident the doctor who examined the injured/deceased and conducted the postmortem had stated that the injuries were found at various places and the accused himself has admitted in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC that he had killed his mother Shanti Bai with the axe and kept the axe in the house, which proves beyond doubt that the accused had murdered Shanti Bai. 40. In the case, the seized axe was sent for FSL test to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. After the test, Ex.P-29 report was received in which human blood was found in the seized axe, which also confirms that the said axe was used to assault Shanti Bai. In Ex.P-29 report, blood was also found in the blouse of the deceased and human blood was also found in the soil seized from the scene of occurrence, which also confirms that the scene of occurrence was the house of the deceased. 41. The place of occurrence was the house of the deceased. On hearing the screams of the deceased, her daughter-in-law, who had come to the store room situated next to the house of the deceased, reached the place and saw the accused hitting the deceased with a tangia (axe) and on hearing her screams, other people also reached the place later. Since the incident took place inside the house, it cannot be assumed that any other eyewitnesses saw the incident. But after the incident, the people of the vicinity had reached there and the eyewitness of the incident, 21 Kamlesh Kosle (PW-3), had told them that the accused had hit the deceased and the deceased was lying there and blood was oozing out of her body. There were various wounds on her body which has been confirmed by the expert witness doctor. After the incident, the tangia (axe) was seized from the place of occurrence (house). Human blood was also found in the said tangia (axe) and human blood was also found in the soil seized from the place of occurrence and the accused has given the statement under section 313 of the CrPC. He himself has admitted to killing his mother Shanti Bai. In such a situation, it is proved beyond doubt that the accused himself committed the crime. 42.
Arguments
deceased measuring 2x1x0.5 cms. 11. The left eye of the deceased appeared black. 12. There was stiffness all over the body of the deceased. 5. Dr. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-10), after conducting the postmortem of the deceased had given the opinion that the death of deceased was due to brain trauma and coma caused by head injuries, it was homicidal in nature and occurred between 12 to 18 hours before the postmortem. His postmortem report is Ex.P-21. Dead body of the deceased was handed over to Raju Koshle, son of the deceased vide Ex.P-10. 6. During the course of investigation, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-8, spot map of the incident site was prepared vide Ex.P-1. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were recovered from the place of incident vide Ex.P-3. The accused/appellant was arrested and arrest sheet was prepared vide Ex.P-4. His memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-11 and at his instance, an axe containing bloodstains over it was seized vide Ex.P-2. Clothes of 6 the deceased was seized vide Ex.P-22. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and receipt of the same was obtained vide Ex.P-28 and after chemical examination, FSL report (Ex.P-29) was received as per which bloodstained was found in the axe seized at the instance of the appellant. 7. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 of the IPC was submitted against the accused / appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pandariya, District- Kawardha. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha received the case for trial, hearing and disposal in accordance with law. Charges under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the accused. The accused abjured the allegations made against him. In his trial under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused, while expressing his innocence and being falsely implicated, has not made any witness stand in defense. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents in support of its case. The defence has neither examined any witnesses nor has exhibited any document. 9. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his mother deceased Shanti Bai, 7 convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 10. Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. He further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the incident took place in a grave and sudden provocation and accused had no intention or motive to kill the deceased. There are material contradiction and omission in the case diary statement and court deposition of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be relied upon and the same cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellant. He also submitted that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 11. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and contended that as per case of the prosecution the appellant / accused has caused fatal injuries by assaulting her with an axe with an intention to kill her. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by way of evidence. He further submits that looking to the 8 seriousness of crime, the appellant is not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Shanti Bai was homicidal in nature ? 15. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Vivek Chandravanshi (PW-7), who has medically examined the deceased before her death and also the statement of Dr.Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-10), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Shanti Bai and given his report vide Ex.P-21, wherein he has given the opinion that the death of deceased was due to brain trauma and coma caused by head injuries, it was homicidal in nature and occurred between 12 to 18 hours before the postmortem. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9 We hereby affirm the said finding. 16. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P-21) of Dr. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-10), who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Shanti Bai was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 17. Now, the question would be, whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, the Evidence Act) would be applicable or not? 18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 19. This provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 10 101, namely, that the burden is on the person, who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 20. In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution, to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word “especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: - “11. … The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on 1 AIR 1956 SC 404 11 the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried.” Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. 21. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar2 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by 2 (2021) 10 SCC 725 12 virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 22. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab3, while considering the provisions contained in Sections 103 & 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a
Decision
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby affirmed. 43. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The appellant Ramkumar Kosle is reported to be in jail. He shall serve the remaining period of jail sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 44. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant 22 informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 45. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra